RALEIGH, N.C. – A soft-spoken 14-year-old's nose piercing has landed her a suspension from school and forced her into the middle of a fight over her First Amendment right to exercise her religion.

Ariana Iacono says she just wants to be a normal teenager at Clayton High School, about 15 miles southeast of Raleigh. She has been suspended since last week because her nose ring violates the Johnston County school system's dress code.

"I think it's kind of stupid for them to kick me out of school for a nose piercing," she said. "It's in the First Amendment for me to have freedom of religion."

Iacono and her mother, Nikki, belong to the Church of Body Modification, a small group unfamiliar to rural North Carolina, but one with a clergy, a statement of beliefs and a formal process for accepting new members.

It's enough to draw the interest of the state chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union, which has contacted school officials with concerns that the rights of the Iaconos are being violated by the suspension.

The Iaconos say the school system is ignoring its own dress code policy, which allows exemptions on religious grounds. The effect, Nikki Iacono, 32, says, is that Johnston County school officials are setting themselves up as judges of what constitutes a "real" religion.

"We pretty much flat-out asked them, what guidelines are you following? What do you need to establish a sincere religious belief?," she said. "We were told that if we were Hindu, or she were Muslim, it would be different."

On Tuesday, after her first suspension ended, Ariana went back to school with her mother — and her nose ring. She was suspended again, this time for five days. If she comes back to school on Sept. 21 with the nose stud, she'll face a 10-day suspension or referral to "alternative schooling," Nikki Iacono said.

A Johnston County schools spokeswoman declined to comment on the situation, saying it's against the law to publicly discuss a particular student's disciplinary matters.

"They're basically saying, because they don't agree and because they choose not to respect our beliefs, that it can't be a sincerely held religious belief," he said.

Ivey describes the church as a non-theistic faith that draws people who see tattoos, piercings and other physical alterations as ways of experiencing the divine.

"We don't worship the god of body modification or anything like that," he said. "Our spirituality comes from what we choose to do ourselves. Through body modification, we can change how we feel about ourselves and how we feel about the world."

The church claims roughly 3,500 members nationwide, having started about two years ago, after adopting the name of a similar group that had been dormant for several years.

Sally Gordon, a professor who focuses on Constitutional law and religious issues at the University of Pennsylvania, said schools have the right to issue neutral rules on dress as long as there's a good reason for it and it does not target a specific religion. But she said the school district could may run into a problem with its religious exemption.

The Johnston County schools dress code policy prohibits several types of facial jewelry but does allow officials to make accommodations for sincerely held religious beliefs.

"One of the remarkable things about religious freedom is that people have all kinds of beliefs that look to others as bizarre but make internal sense to them," Gordon said. "We really can only claim to be a country that respects religious liberty if we respect the variety of beliefs that exist in the country — both new and old."

The Iaconos have contacted the North Carolina ACLU chapter for help, and legal director Katy Parker says the school is on shaky ground.

"We do think she has a right to wear her nose ring," Parker said.

Students' free expression rights are limited at schools, but Parker believes a legal category known as a "hybrid right" overrules those curbs. Essentially, the Iaconos are arguing that Ariana's right to free expression and Nikki's right to raise her daughter as she wishes are being abridged.

In 1999, a federal court in North Carolina ruled that the Halifax County school system had violated such hybrid rights of Catherine Hicks and her great-grandson by forcing the boy to wear a school uniform.

Hicks' religious beliefs held that uniformity is linked to the anti-Christ, a belief Halifax schools rejected. But the court ruled in her favor, and ordered the school system to include a religious exemption in its dress code policy.

A similar situation to the Iaconos' went to the courts in 2002, when a woman was fired from her job at a Costco store over her eyebrow ring. The woman was also a member of the Church of Body Modification, but the courts eventually ruled that her religious beliefs did not require her to always wear her jewelry.

The ACLU, like the Iaconos and their minister, hope their issue can be resolved without going to court. In the meantime, Nikki and Ariana pick up schoolwork for her to do at home while her peers sit in class.

"I hope they're going to stop suspending me and clear some of these absences from my record," Ariana said. "I want to get into a good college."

We need to wait and see how this goes because if the ACLU wins I'm forming "The Church of Arms" where as part of our faith we are required to carry a loaded firearm and some form of bladed weapon with us at all times.

We need to wait and see how this goes because if the ACLU wins I'm forming "The Church of Arms" where as part of our faith we are required to carry a loaded firearm and some form of bladed weapon with us at all times.

We need to wait and see how this goes because if the ACLU wins I'm forming "The Church of Arms" where as part of our faith we are required to carry a loaded firearm and some form of bladed weapon with us at all times.

We need to wait and see how this goes because if the ACLU wins I'm forming "The Church of Arms" where as part of our faith we are required to carry a loaded firearm and some form of bladed weapon with us at all times.

Originally Posted By SlipShot762:...Sub drank me under the table, unbelievable! I remember thinking vaguely, "This pair of Subnet fuckers is cheating, pulling out the magical monkey juice for a last minute win!"

We need to wait and see how this goes because if the ACLU wins I'm forming "The Church of Arms" where as part of our faith we are required to carry a loaded firearm and some form of bladed weapon with us at all times.

We need to wait and see how this goes because if the ACLU wins I'm forming "The Church of Arms" where as part of our faith we are required to carry a loaded firearm and some form of bladed weapon with us at all times.

We need to wait and see how this goes because if the ACLU wins I'm forming "The Church of Arms" where as part of our faith we are required to carry a loaded firearm and some form of bladed weapon with us at all times.

We need to wait and see how this goes because if the ACLU wins I'm forming "The Church of Arms" where as part of our faith we are required to carry a loaded firearm and some form of bladed weapon with us at all times.

posted by fsk1290: "You cook BBQ dude. That's it. Big whoop. That ain't hard, all ya need is a good fire and a themometer. and slop some sauce over it... I"m sure it tastes so much better then the 12,825,964 OTHERS out there......"

We need to wait and see how this goes because if the ACLU wins I'm forming "The Church of Arms" where as part of our faith we are required to carry a loaded firearm and some form of bladed weapon with us at all times.

can i join your church?

Do you accept John Moses Browning as your savior?

Praise be to The Lord's Prophet...Saint John Moses.

When the mob and the press and the whole world tell you to move, your job is to plant yourself like a tree by the river of truth, and tell the whole world "No, You Move."

We need to wait and see how this goes because if the ACLU wins I'm forming "The Church of Arms" where as part of our faith we are required to carry a loaded firearm and some form of bladed weapon with us at all times.

They already have a religion like that, its called "Sikhs". Very cool, kick ass, enemies of Islam for centuries.

Statement of Faith

As followers of this faith, it is our purpose to educate and
inspire, to share ideas, and to help each other achieve our dreams. We
strive to unify and strengthen our mind, body, and soul so we can
overcome any challenges we may encounter. We assert and protect our
rights to modify our bodies and to practice our rituals.

We believe our bodies belong only to ourselves and are a whole and
integrated entity: mind, body, and soul. We maintain we have the right
to alter them for spiritual and other reasons.

Affirmation of our living, breathing, physical beings is paramount to
our self-identities and helps us define who we are. The Church of Body
Modification promotes affirmation and growth of a more expansive
perspective of our physical and spiritual being.

Makes as much sense as anything else out there.

And meets the criteria of the first few google finds for the legal definition of a church.

Pierce it Brother!

I have gained this from philosophy: that I do without being commanded what others do only from fear of the law. - Aristotle

We need to wait and see how this goes because if the ACLU wins I'm forming "The Church of Arms" where as part of our faith we are required to carry a loaded firearm and some form of bladed weapon with us at all times.

To determine whether an action of the federal or state government infringes upon a person's right to freedom of religion, the court must decide what qualifies as religion or religious activities for purposes of the First Amendment. The Supreme Court has interpreted religion to mean a sincere and meaningful belief that occupies in the life of its possessor a place parallel to the place held by God in the lives of other persons. The religion or religious concept need not include belief in the existence of God or a supreme being to be within the scope of the First Amendment.

As the case of United States v. Ballard, 322 U.S. 78, 64 S. Ct. 882, 88 L. Ed. 1148 (1944), demonstrates, the Supreme Court must look to the sincerity of a person's beliefs to help decide if those beliefs constitute a religion that deserves constitutional protection. The Ballard case involved the conviction of organizers of the I Am movement on grounds that they defrauded people by falsely representing that their members had supernatural powers to heal people with incurable illnesses. The Supreme Court held that the jury, in determining the line between the free exercise of religion and the punishable offense of obtaining property under False Pretenses, should not decide whether the claims of the I Am members were actually true, only whether the members honestly believed them to be true, thus qualifying the group as a religion under the Supreme Court's broad definition.

In addition, a belief does not need to be stated in traditional terms to fall within First Amendment protection. For example, Scientology—a system of beliefs that a human being is essentially a free and immortal spirit who merely inhabits a body—does not propound the existence of a supreme being, but it qualifies as a religion under the broad definition propounded by the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court has deliberately avoided establishing an exact or a narrow definition of religion because freedom of religion is a dynamic guarantee that was written in a manner to ensure flexibility and responsiveness to the passage of time and the development of the United States. Thus, religion is not limited to traditional denominations.

and

The Free Exercise Clause guarantees a person the right to practice a religion and propagate it without government interference. This right is a liberty interest that cannot be deprived without

Due Process of Law. Although the government cannot restrict a person's religious beliefs, it can limit the practice of faith when a substantial and compelling state interest exists. The courts have found that a substantial and compelling State Interest exists when the religious practice poses a threat to the health, safety, or Welfare of the public. For example, the government could legitimately outlaw the practice of Polygamy that was formerly mandated by the doctrines of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (Mormons) but could not outlaw the religion or belief in Mormonism itself (Reynolds v. United States, 98 U.S. 145, 25 L. Ed. 244 [1878]). The Supreme Court has invalidated very few actions of the government on the basis of this clause.

That said, even if this "Church of Body modification" gets deemed a valid religion, she could be screwed based on DPOL, where 'safety' or welfare is a concern.

Why must the world be so full of fucking idiots who want to push the envelope.

To determine whether an action of the federal or state government infringes upon a person's right to freedom of religion, the court must decide what qualifies as religion or religious activities for purposes of the First Amendment. The Supreme Court has interpreted religion to mean a sincere and meaningful belief that occupies in the life of its possessor a place parallel to the place held by God in the lives of other persons. The religion or religious concept need not include belief in the existence of God or a supreme being to be within the scope of the First Amendment.

As the case of United States v. Ballard, 322 U.S. 78, 64 S. Ct. 882, 88 L. Ed. 1148 (1944), demonstrates, the Supreme Court must look to the sincerity of a person's beliefs to help decide if those beliefs constitute a religion that deserves constitutional protection. The Ballard case involved the conviction of organizers of the I Am movement on grounds that they defrauded people by falsely representing that their members had supernatural powers to heal people with incurable illnesses. The Supreme Court held that the jury, in determining the line between the free exercise of religion and the punishable offense of obtaining property under False Pretenses, should not decide whether the claims of the I Am members were actually true, only whether the members honestly believed them to be true, thus qualifying the group as a religion under the Supreme Court's broad definition.

In addition, a belief does not need to be stated in traditional terms to fall within First Amendment protection. For example, Scientology—a system of beliefs that a human being is essentially a free and immortal spirit who merely inhabits a body—does not propound the existence of a supreme being, but it qualifies as a religion under the broad definition propounded by the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court has deliberately avoided establishing an exact or a narrow definition of religion because freedom of religion is a dynamic guarantee that was written in a manner to ensure flexibility and responsiveness to the passage of time and the development of the United States. Thus, religion is not limited to traditional denominations.

and

The Free Exercise Clause guarantees a person the right to practice a religion and propagate it without government interference. This right is a liberty interest that cannot be deprived without

Due Process of Law. Although the government cannot restrict a person's religious beliefs, it can limit the practice of faith when a substantial and compelling state interest exists. The courts have found that a substantial and compelling State Interest exists when the religious practice poses a threat to the health, safety, or Welfare of the public. For example, the government could legitimately outlaw the practice of Polygamy that was formerly mandated by the doctrines of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (Mormons) but could not outlaw the religion or belief in Mormonism itself (Reynolds v. United States, 98 U.S. 145, 25 L. Ed. 244 [1878]). The Supreme Court has invalidated very few actions of the government on the basis of this clause.

That said, even if this "Church of Body modification" gets deemed a valid religion, she could be screwed based on DPOL, where 'safety' or welfare is a concern.

Why must the world be so full of fucking idiots who want to push the envelope.

A new envelope is exactly what we need.

I have gained this from philosophy: that I do without being commanded what others do only from fear of the law. - Aristotle

To determine whether an action of the federal or state government infringes upon a person's right to freedom of religion, the court must decide what qualifies as religion or religious activities for purposes of the First Amendment. The Supreme Court has interpreted religion to mean a sincere and meaningful belief that occupies in the life of its possessor a place parallel to the place held by God in the lives of other persons. The religion or religious concept need not include belief in the existence of God or a supreme being to be within the scope of the First Amendment.

As the case of United States v. Ballard, 322 U.S. 78, 64 S. Ct. 882, 88 L. Ed. 1148 (1944), demonstrates, the Supreme Court must look to the sincerity of a person's beliefs to help decide if those beliefs constitute a religion that deserves constitutional protection. The Ballard case involved the conviction of organizers of the I Am movement on grounds that they defrauded people by falsely representing that their members had supernatural powers to heal people with incurable illnesses. The Supreme Court held that the jury, in determining the line between the free exercise of religion and the punishable offense of obtaining property under False Pretenses, should not decide whether the claims of the I Am members were actually true, only whether the members honestly believed them to be true, thus qualifying the group as a religion under the Supreme Court's broad definition.

In addition, a belief does not need to be stated in traditional terms to fall within First Amendment protection. For example, Scientology—a system of beliefs that a human being is essentially a free and immortal spirit who merely inhabits a body—does not propound the existence of a supreme being, but it qualifies as a religion under the broad definition propounded by the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court has deliberately avoided establishing an exact or a narrow definition of religion because freedom of religion is a dynamic guarantee that was written in a manner to ensure flexibility and responsiveness to the passage of time and the development of the United States. Thus, religion is not limited to traditional denominations.

and

The Free Exercise Clause guarantees a person the right to practice a religion and propagate it without government interference. This right is a liberty interest that cannot be deprived without

Due Process of Law. Although the government cannot restrict a person's religious beliefs, it can limit the practice of faith when a substantial and compelling state interest exists. The courts have found that a substantial and compelling State Interest exists when the religious practice poses a threat to the health, safety, or Welfare of the public. For example, the government could legitimately outlaw the practice of Polygamy that was formerly mandated by the doctrines of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (Mormons) but could not outlaw the religion or belief in Mormonism itself (Reynolds v. United States, 98 U.S. 145, 25 L. Ed. 244 [1878]). The Supreme Court has invalidated very few actions of the government on the basis of this clause.

That said, even if this "Church of Body modification" gets deemed a valid religion, she could be screwed based on DPOL, where 'safety' or welfare is a concern.

Why must the world be so full of fucking idiots who want to push the envelope.

I was trying to think of the case that had the I Am religion in it. Thanks for posting it. I doubt that this will fly if it makes it to the Supreme Court, but I guess we shall see.

Who is John Galt?

Originally Posted By Rugerlvr: The sooner you "provoke" a confrontation, the sooner you can shoot him. "He was coming right at me!!!!"

We need to wait and see how this goes because if the ACLU wins I'm forming "The Church of Arms" where as part of our faith we are required to carry a loaded firearm and some form of bladed weapon with us at all times.

Ariana Iacono, 14, poses in Clayton, N.C., Sept. 15, 2010.
Iacono was suspended from her high school when she refused to remove the small piercing stud in her nose.
She said it is a religious matter because she and her mother belong to the "Church of Body Modification."